Capítulo VI: El Proceso Estratégico
6.12. Matriz de Estrategias versus Posibilidades de los Competidores y Sustitutos
Figure 1. Alice’s analysis of students’ transcribed spoken arguments
In this lesson the focus has been ‘Evaluating argument’. I am looking at how argument can be assessed. I have chosen to focus on spoken argument during class discussions. The ‘Level of argument’ sheet was used to identify claim, data, warrants and rebuttals in pupils’ conversations. What follows is an attempt to analyse particular parts of the lesson that I recorded in writing.
Level 1 Fateha I agree with it John No, it’s bad Fahmida I don’t know John It’s bad, I know
This shows a claim from Fateha. John just disagrees - a counter claim. Fahmida doesn’t help. John repeats what he had said before, but still doesn’t explain why.
Vincent I eat GM food and you do too
Sabena Don’t say that, it’s not true. Anyway how do you know what I eat?
Vincent ……said it’s in loads of food, like veg. Sabena I don’t like veg.
Vincent seems interested in discussing a social implication of the presence of GM but Sabena took offence and defended herself. This is another example of a low level argument as it is simply claim versus claim.
Level 2 Jake responded to Vincent
Jake So this means it is bad for health because we are eating it
Vincent Well, I haven’t died
This conversation shows a claim by Jake followed by Vincent backing his claim with ‘weak’ data – ‘Well, I haven’t died’.
Level 3 Fateha We can have more food and people need it. John But it’s bad because it’s not natural
Fatena What, plants or genes? John No changing it like that Fatena And it grows quicker
John Because you can’t change it back
John has included a rebuttal – ‘changing genes’ is not ‘natural’ and implies danger when he adds the data ‘because you can’t change it back’. However, it doesn’t carry much weight. John does not explain fully how his evidence related to his argument, so I assume it to be a Level 3.
Level 4 Luke steps into the conversation between Fateha and John, in support of John.
Luke Yeh, its like sometimes the changes can do a bad thing, like getting it to be bad for the soil, or it makes it dangerous and if that happens it spreads and you can’t stop it.
Luke reiterates what John said but makes a stronger rebuttal this time. Level 5 John GM food is not good
Fateha I don’t think so
Fahmida It affects wildlife like insects so it has to be bad because of the food chain, so it will have an effect on the
environment like more or less animals. It depends .
Fateha talks to Rima to get her on side –
Rima Look, it says that more people can eat because it grows better, I don’t know, so then the land will be less
damaged because you have to grow less. And this is done so it doesn’t get diseases and that.
The discussion starts with a simple claim ‘it’s not good’ vs counter claim by Fateha. Fahmida offers data – it affects the environment, and also a warrant – because it affects the food chain causing an imbalance. Rima supports Fateha with a rebuttal – it will affect the land less because you have to grow less and there is less chance of the plant being diseased.
The challenge presented in an argumentation lesson is to make an effective argument – where all its components are present. It is important for pupils to offer reasons – data – to support their claim and, if they do not agree with the counter claim they should be able to work through the other’s thinking to find out exactly why it is they don’t agree with it.
A good argument is valid and connects the claim and conclusion by using evidence. To evaluate argument I have focused on pupils’ conversations during a class
Figure 2. Alice’s annotated student work, and commentary I think that Birt will melt 1st because….
The sun is hitting Birt directly so he will melt quicker as the sun carries heat energy [claim and data], which means the heat from the sun can be passed through the molecules quicker if the sun is hitting him directly [warrant].
Another reason is that….
Birt is not wearing a coat so when the snow melts to water it can melt and drip off whereas if he was wearing a coat the coat will absorb the water, and water is not a good conductor of heat [backing].
One reason why Fred’s argument was wrong in the first place is because…. He says that his coat will trap all the sun’s energy [counter-claim], however he doesn’t say that the sun’s hitting him directly [rebuttal], so it will take more time to trap the sun’s energy [backing]. And also when the water melts the coat will absorb it, and water is not a good conductor of heat [rebuttal].
Finally, I think that….
Birt will melt first the main reason is that the sun will hit him directly. Fred will melt last as the sun isn’t going to hit him directly even though he’s wearing a coat
[considering counter-claim].
The argument is introduced with a claim followed by data. The link between the data and the claim is being stated by the warrant, thus making this a strong argument. The pupils have carefully considered the counter-argument (rebuttal) by stating why it is that the opposing argument does not hold true.
This is a high-level argument – it is and extended argument – the group has considered both sides of the argument, and there is more than one rebuttal present. Also, they have carefully backed up their ideas with evidence and have explored where the data does not fit into the claim made.
Figure 3 Martin’s Lesson plan for Lesson 1 Genetics and variation Context
A new topic: in the previous lesson we looked at the PowerPoint show and discussed the role of evidence in making decisions.
Objectives
Explain that variation can be caused by genetic and environmental factors Explain that genetic variation can be caused by:
Mutations (as caused by radiation, chemicals, spontaneous)
Fertilisation
Explain that mutations are usually harmful but may be beneficial.
Recognise that there is a debate over the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors in determining some human attributes.
Intelligence Sporting ability Health
Success criteria
1. Using examples and evidence I can decide if the difference in living organisms is caused by genetic or environmental factors;
2. I will be able to explain how human appearance and performance is affected by Genetics and the Environment
Resources
PowerPoint slideshow, Concept cartoons 7.11, 7.2 and 6.8
Time Pupils Teacher
10 minutes Starter activity: pupils are given cards with questions on about differences in animals and plants. They need to try to give reasons for this (pair work)
Register
10 minutes Pupils observe powerpoint and decide on the outcomes of the lesson
20 minutes In groups of 4: they look at the concept cartoon The roles are 2 listeners, 1 scribe and 1 questioner – speaker. The speakers give their thoughts on each suggestion with reasons as to why they think they could be correct or not. They must give ideas on how to provide evidence for their choices.
Teacher displays groups on Whiteboard
5 minutes Scribes feedback to different groups Teacher gives scribes permission to move.
10 minutes Whole class discussion on the outcomes Teacher invites comments 30 minutes In pairs pupils will research changes in humans.
Criteria: genetic – are the benefits for all or a few? Give examples of the changes being made. Focus on health, sport and intelligence.
Environmental: focus on health, sport, intelligence
Teacher sets the scene. Humans are changing: the causes are the environment and genetics
10 minutes Pupils feed back to other pairs: in feedback one pair listens the others talk
Figure 4 Martin’s reflection on this lesson.
Powerpoint and audio [discussion] was good – pupils identified different types of variation and contributed concepts heard of and displayed good prior knowledge. The soundtrack provided good discussion about genetics and its possible effect on the planet.
The lesson worked well, in that groups actively involved themselves in the activity. There were 3 different activities linked to variation. The groups were arranged by me and displayed via power point. As not in friendship groups – but random with mixed ability within them this caused initial problems. However the activity went well. Each person had a clear role. At the end the scribes went to a group with their worksheet. The group had time to look at the sheet and then listen to the scribe. Groups then asked the scribe questions.
The argument activity worked well however it should improve as the pupils are not used to this sort of activity. In supporting the groups the underlying problems revolved around getting them to think of evidence that they know of or experiments they could do to disprove their ideas.
To restructure: get pupils to find evidence of human modification by looking at papers, press sites, then looking for arguments to support these changes through their own beliefs, personal experiences and evidence from press and internet.
Figure 5 Martin’s Lesson Plan onVolcanoes and Earthquakes Lesson Outcomes:
Science content
Explain why scientists cannot yet accurately predict when earthquakes and volcanic eruptions will occur.
Ideas and evidence
Uncertainties in scientific knowledge. These are especially likely in complex situations [I&E (d)].
Key skills/thinking skills
Communication: contribute to discussion
Reasoning: make deductions, and judgements informed by evidence
Enquiry skills: predict outcomes.
Context:
The class has been studying rocks and in the previous lesson we looked at volcanoes, earthquakes and plate tectonics.
Resources
Prepare for learning – scrolling power point of volcanoes and earthquakes with music – You make the earth move under my feet.
Class set of earthquake-volcano worksheets
Time Pupil Teacher
5mins Pupils to watch slide show (on entry) Register 5mins Discuss in pairs what they think could be
the causes of earthquakes and volcanoes. Come to agreement on the causes
5mins Pupils will put forward ideas – have to decide if it can be backed by evidence
Ask pupils for ideas – record on white board 15mins In each group one person is to read the text
for the group. Followed by the questions.
Introduce the activity – set up rules. For forces of
They are to discuss the answers as a group following the talking rule. The scribe writes down the answers. The scribe moves to a second group to read the answers to them. The group can ask the new scribe questions but must have pen in hand.
Pupils get into expert groups
Nature. When talking only the penholder can talk.
Ask for comments from groups on questions
5mins Pupils read through agenda in silence
2mins Go through main activity
and the agenda and set the rules
15mins Pupils are to discuss the expert cards – one speaker at a time – they can highlight and/or make notes.
Pupils then work through the agenda in the order set. Penholder to speak and pass on pen
Assign roles for group activity
30mins To complete table and answer questions Call meeting groups together
10mins Pupils respond and make contributions to class
Bring class together to discuss questions and answers
Set homework which is to complete predication question
Plenary – pupils give way in which scientists make predications
Figure 6 Martin’s Examples of student work from the volcanoes lesson Student 1
1. Scientists can only say there might be a eruption
2. Scientists can only collect indirect evidence of changes in earth’s surface magma near the surface – small eruption of magma inside the volcano – big eruption. 3. Predication can lead to false alarms – rising magma can freeze and stop 4. Volcanoes can erupt without warning
This [is a] good example of using evidence to back up an answer/response to questions
Student 2
We should spend money on preparing the town so it can survive the disaster. It is better to protect the town because you’ll be saving money as if you spend it making predictions you won’t have more money to take any action.
This student has made a suggestion but not actually considered and included evidence.